Markelle Fultz Discussion

[Ericb5]

Not off the Fultz train by any means, but I find it strange that we not only selected him, but traded up for him if he's going to be an off ball shooting guard every time he's on the court. I know it's one game, but he wasn't playing his natural position when Ben was sitting and McConnell was PG.

Not that I'm a fan of either of these guys, but if we wanted an off ball role player, Ball and Jackson were there. Or we could have just taken Mitchell at 3.

One of about 5 reasons trading up for him was ridiculous. But it made sense at the time, if you were of the mindset that Fultz was great and you didn't believe Simmons could possibly play PG full-time.

We didn't need an on the ball guard, and that wasn't the rationale of getting him. He can be a secondary ball handler, but the primary driver for him was that he was a scoring guard that could shoot, defend the point, and iso score in stretches. He ticks all those boxes as a prospect.

If he ends up being a high level nba player in those areas then he is worth it.

[LloydFree]

Not off the Fultz train by any means, but I find it strange that we not only selected him, but traded up for him if he's going to be an off ball shooting guard every time he's on the court. I know it's one game, but he wasn't playing his natural position when Ben was sitting and McConnell was PG.

Not that I'm a fan of either of these guys, but if we wanted an off ball role player, Ball and Jackson were there. Or we could have just taken Mitchell at 3.

One of about 5 reasons trading up for him was ridiculous. But it made sense at the time, if you were of the mindset that Fultz was great and you didn't believe Simmons could possibly play PG full-time.

We didn't need an on the ball guard, and that wasn't the rationale of getting him. He can be a secondary ball handler, but the primary driver for him was that he was a scoring guard that could shoot, defend the point, and iso score in stretches. He ticks all those boxes as a prospect.

If he ends up being a high level nba player in those areas then he is worth it.

Fultz played more 'on ball' than both Lonzo Ball and Dennis Smith. This was a public relations pick. It helped sell some tickets, so its a success.

He'll never be good enough to justify #1 or what they gave up for him, but he has enough talent to be a productive NBA player. We traded up for a Joe Smith.

[Unbreakable99]

Not off the Fultz train by any means, but I find it strange that we not only selected him, but traded up for him if he's going to be an off ball shooting guard every time he's on the court. I know it's one game, but he wasn't playing his natural position when Ben was sitting and McConnell was PG.

Not that I'm a fan of either of these guys, but if we wanted an off ball role player, Ball and Jackson were there. Or we could have just taken Mitchell at 3.

Drafted a PnR guard to do nothing but spot up. I think Simmons not playing messed us up during the draft. Had no real direction of where we wanted to go because last years pick was such a question mark considering he didn't play. Looks like they just said F it draft the well rounded offensive player and go from there.

I disagree that Simmons not playing messed us up. The staff and BC knew what Ben could do. They saw him in practice. We just need to chalk this up as an loss almost like Okafor, but instead of standing pat and taking Fultz we gave up a very good asset. At least Okafor didn't cost us an additional asset to get him.

[JojoSlimbiid]

Drafted a PnR guard to do nothing but spot up. I think Simmons not playing messed us up during the draft. Had no real direction of where we wanted to go because last years pick was such a question mark considering he didn't play. Looks like they just said F it draft the well rounded offensive player and go from there.

Which player was a better fit than?

If Simmons was healthy last year and showed ability to actually run point and was given the same leash that's he's been given now? Probably Lonzo. He's less individually talented but he's better off ball and would run with Simmons.

Fultz is the better player by a decent margin if your playing to his strengths. We aren't and probably won't with this system so we just got to hope they mold him into whatever they want him to be.

[JojoSlimbiid]

Not off the Fultz train by any means, but I find it strange that we not only selected him, but traded up for him if he's going to be an off ball shooting guard every time he's on the court. I know it's one game, but he wasn't playing his natural position when Ben was sitting and McConnell was PG.

Not that I'm a fan of either of these guys, but if we wanted an off ball role player, Ball and Jackson were there. Or we could have just taken Mitchell at 3.

Drafted a PnR guard to do nothing but spot up. I think Simmons not playing messed us up during the draft. Had no real direction of where we wanted to go because last years pick was such a question mark considering he didn't play. Looks like they just said F it draft the well rounded offensive player and go from there.

I disagree that Simmons not playing messed us up. The staff and BC knew what Ben could do. They saw him in practice. We just need to chalk this up as an loss almost like Okafor, but instead of standing pat and taking Fultz we gave up a very good asset. At least Okafor didn't cost us an additional asset to get him.

This is nothing like Okafor, but it's not surprising hearing garbage come out of your mouth.

[Kobblehead]

Fultz at least has enough athletic ability to fulfill a good portion of his potential. I think Dario and Jahlil are more comparable in terms of low-ceiling prospects overvalued based on unnecessary positional traits (passing PF and iso scoring C).

[BullyKing]

Not off the Fultz train by any means, but I find it strange that we not only selected him, but traded up for him if he's going to be an off ball shooting guard every time he's on the court. I know it's one game, but he wasn't playing his natural position when Ben was sitting and McConnell was PG.

Not that I'm a fan of either of these guys, but if we wanted an off ball role player, Ball and Jackson were there. Or we could have just taken Mitchell at 3.

Drafted a PnR guard to do nothing but spot up. I think Simmons not playing messed us up during the draft. Had no real direction of where we wanted to go because last years pick was such a question mark considering he didn't play. Looks like they just said F it draft the well rounded offensive player and go from there.

I disagree that Simmons not playing messed us up. The staff and BC knew what Ben could do. They saw him in practice. We just need to chalk this up as an loss almost like Okafor, but instead of standing pat and taking Fultz we gave up a very good asset. At least Okafor didn't cost us an additional asset to get him.

Yes, by all means chalk it up as a loss after one game. Since we've now all agreed that Fultz is a huge bust and trading up for him was an enormous mistake, can you please give it a rest for five minutes?

[Negrodamus]

Not off the Fultz train by any means, but I find it strange that we not only selected him, but traded up for him if he's going to be an off ball shooting guard every time he's on the court. I know it's one game, but he wasn't playing his natural position when Ben was sitting and McConnell was PG.

Not that I'm a fan of either of these guys, but if we wanted an off ball role player, Ball and Jackson were there. Or we could have just taken Mitchell at 3.

One of about 5 reasons trading up for him was ridiculous. But it made sense at the time, if you were of the mindset that Fultz was great and you didn't believe Simmons could possibly play PG full-time.

We didn't need an on the ball guard, and that wasn't the rationale of getting him. He can be a secondary ball handler, but the primary driver for him was that he was a scoring guard that could shoot, defend the point, and iso score in stretches. He ticks all those boxes as a prospect.

If he ends up being a high level nba player in those areas then he is worth it.

Right, and we traded up for that player, but now he's off ball all the time, doesn't shoot (no one could have foreseen that though), isn't known as a plus defender. He shouldn't be ISOing ever, he should be running PnRs as often as he can in games.

It's like drafting Damian Lillard and putting him at SG. You take something that's a plus on him, being a pretty big PG, and minimize it by turning him into a spot up shooting undersized SG.

Now, they could be just minimizing his responsibilities because he's young, but if the long term play is to be, best case scenario, Beal or McCollum, then it's a little perplexing to me. Especially because he traded up for him.

[Unbreakable99]

Drafted a PnR guard to do nothing but spot up. I think Simmons not playing messed us up during the draft. Had no real direction of where we wanted to go because last years pick was such a question mark considering he didn't play. Looks like they just said F it draft the well rounded offensive player and go from there.

I disagree that Simmons not playing messed us up. The staff and BC knew what Ben could do. They saw him in practice. We just need to chalk this up as an loss almost like Okafor, but instead of standing pat and taking Fultz we gave up a very good asset. At least Okafor didn't cost us an additional asset to get him.

This is nothing like Okafor, but it's not surprising hearing garbage come out of your mouth.

I think Fultz will be more productive than Okafor. Not being a good defender as a guard isn't as bad as not being a good defender at Center. Plus Fultz has tools to be a good defender. His game fits the modern way of basketball unlike Okafor. But we gave up nothing for Okafor. Moving up to get Fultz could cost us Porter Jr or Bagley or Doncic or Ayton or Bamba. We could have taken Josh Jackson or DSJ or Fultz at 3 and then gotten another high quality player. Now that's up in the air considering where the Lakers or Kings pick falls. But my point is BC and the staff knew exactly what Simmons could do. He practiced with them in camp last year. They worked with him. Don't make any excuses for drafting Fultz. We just have to try to make the best of a less than ideal situation.

[Unbreakable99]

Drafted a PnR guard to do nothing but spot up. I think Simmons not playing messed us up during the draft. Had no real direction of where we wanted to go because last years pick was such a question mark considering he didn't play. Looks like they just said F it draft the well rounded offensive player and go from there.

I disagree that Simmons not playing messed us up. The staff and BC knew what Ben could do. They saw him in practice. We just need to chalk this up as an loss almost like Okafor, but instead of standing pat and taking Fultz we gave up a very good asset. At least Okafor didn't cost us an additional asset to get him.

Yes, by all means chalk it up as a loss after one game. Since we've now all agreed that Fultz is a huge bust and trading up for him was an enormous mistake, can you please give it a rest for five minutes?

I didn't call Fultz a bust. I actually think he showed some positives last night. I just want him to shoot like he did in Summer League. I like Fultz as a prospect. Don't get it twisted.

[LloydFree]

Fultz at least has enough athletic ability to fulfill a good portion of his potential. I think Dario and Jahlil are more comparable in terms of low-ceiling prospects overvalued based on unnecessary positional traits (passing PF and iso scoring C).

All 3 players are low ceiling. Fultz is a better athlete and less limitations than both of them, but he isn't a great athlete for his position, IMO. I believe he's below average for starting NBA point guard. Fultz has a higher floor, because he has a varied skill set and the length to theoretically become a plus defender. But his athleticism limits his ceiling.

[Negrodamus]

BTW, I'm not saying Markelle is a bust nor am I missing the reason for why he was the first overall pick. He is incredibly talented and looked great last night in my opinion. I just think that if what we saw last night is the plan moving forward, then the trade doesn't make sense. We'll just be wasting potential and he will 100% leave when his next contract comes around.

[Wilfried]

Completely insane things being said here

1) after 1 game (in which both played decent to good) proclaiming they aren't capable of playing together or someone is not capable of playing off the ball
2) Last time I checked, the best teams have at least 2 ball handlers in there starting unit (Golden State, Houston, Cleveland, Portland to a lesser extent). But in Philadelphia, it's completely impossible to let it work?

The pretending teams (Clippers with Paul, Raptors, Wizards), that are the teams with only 1 (ball dominating) true PG. Those teams don't come further than 2nd round

[JojoSlimbiid]

I disagree that Simmons not playing messed us up. The staff and BC knew what Ben could do. They saw him in practice. We just need to chalk this up as an loss almost like Okafor, but instead of standing pat and taking Fultz we gave up a very good asset. At least Okafor didn't cost us an additional asset to get him.

This is nothing like Okafor, but it's not surprising hearing garbage come out of your mouth.

I think Fultz will be more productive than Okafor. Not being a good defender as a guard isn't as bad as not being a good defender at Center. Plus Fultz has tools to be a good defender. His game fits the modern way of basketball unlike Okafor. But we gave up nothing for Okafor. Moving up to get Fultz could cost us Porter Jr or Bagley or Doncic or Ayton or Bamba. We could have taken Josh Jackson or DSJ or Fultz at 3 and then gotten another high quality player. Now that's up in the air considering where the Lakers or Kings pick falls. But my point is BC and the staff knew exactly what Simmons could do. He practiced with them in camp last year. They worked with him. Don't make any excuses for drafting Fultz. We just have to try to make the best of a less than ideal situation.

Who is making excuses? We had no idea what we had with Ben so we drafted the best offensive talent irregardless of play style fit or how we plan to use him. The point is that he's a versatile enough offensive player and checked so many boxes that we took him even though lesser talent might have fit this particular system. It was the smart organizational thing to do because guess what we aren't going to always be running this system.

[LloydFree]

One of about 5 reasons trading up for him was ridiculous. But it made sense at the time, if you were of the mindset that Fultz was great and you didn't believe Simmons could possibly play PG full-time.

We didn't need an on the ball guard, and that wasn't the rationale of getting him. He can be a secondary ball handler, but the primary driver for him was that he was a scoring guard that could shoot, defend the point, and iso score in stretches. He ticks all those boxes as a prospect.

If he ends up being a high level nba player in those areas then he is worth it.

Right, and we traded up for that player, but now he's off ball all the time, doesn't shoot (no one could have foreseen that though), isn't known as a plus defender. He shouldn't be ISOing ever, he should be running PnRs as often as he can in games.

It's like drafting Damian Lillard and putting him at SG. You take something that's a plus on him, being a pretty big PG, and minimize it by turning him into a spot up shooting undersized SG.

Now, they could be just minimizing his responsibilities because he's young, but if the long term play is to be, best case scenario, Beal or McCollum, then it's a little perplexing to me. Especially because he traded up for him.

??? Beal or McCollum was always his upside. If he becomes that, then this transaction becomes a success. If anything, I don't get why you use those picks to pick a 18 year old and have to wait 4 years for him to become Beal or McCollum. Just trade the picks for McCollum and avoid the risk.

[Sixerscan]

We didn't need an on the ball guard, and that wasn't the rationale of getting him. He can be a secondary ball handler, but the primary driver for him was that he was a scoring guard that could shoot, defend the point, and iso score in stretches. He ticks all those boxes as a prospect.

If he ends up being a high level nba player in those areas then he is worth it.

Right, and we traded up for that player, but now he's off ball all the time, doesn't shoot (no one could have foreseen that though), isn't known as a plus defender. He shouldn't be ISOing ever, he should be running PnRs as often as he can in games.

It's like drafting Damian Lillard and putting him at SG. You take something that's a plus on him, being a pretty big PG, and minimize it by turning him into a spot up shooting undersized SG.

Now, they could be just minimizing his responsibilities because he's young, but if the long term play is to be, best case scenario, Beal or McCollum, then it's a little perplexing to me. Especially because he traded up for him.

??? Beal or McCollum was always his upside. If he becomes that, then this transaction becomes a success. If anything, I don't get why you use those picks to pick a 18 year old and have to wait 4 years for him to become Beal or McCollum. Just trade the picks for McCollum and avoid the risk.

You keep saying stuff like this like you have a crystal ball. There are people that have actually done more than watch Fultz play 6 college games on TV that don't speak in such absolutes about the guy.

[James40]

Don’t we all remember the hype MCW received after he smoked Miami in his first game, then the hyperbole that was Noel?

Now look at those two, neither is very good, let’s see Fultz play at least a season before we decide if if he was the wrong pick.

If Fultz is hurt then he shouldn’t play at all, if he’s healthy he needs to start and get 25-30 minutes a night. That way he hits the wall this February, not February of 2019 when we need him.

These guys all need to figure out how to play together and the sooner we put a consistent starting 5 on the floor, the better team they’ll be.

[Unbreakable99]

This is nothing like Okafor, but it's not surprising hearing garbage come out of your mouth.

I think Fultz will be more productive than Okafor. Not being a good defender as a guard isn't as bad as not being a good defender at Center. Plus Fultz has tools to be a good defender. His game fits the modern way of basketball unlike Okafor. But we gave up nothing for Okafor. Moving up to get Fultz could cost us Porter Jr or Bagley or Doncic or Ayton or Bamba. We could have taken Josh Jackson or DSJ or Fultz at 3 and then gotten another high quality player. Now that's up in the air considering where the Lakers or Kings pick falls. But my point is BC and the staff knew exactly what Simmons could do. He practiced with them in camp last year. They worked with him. Don't make any excuses for drafting Fultz. We just have to try to make the best of a less than ideal situation.

Who is making excuses? We had no idea what we had with Ben so we drafted the best offensive talent irregardless of play style fit or how we plan to use him. The point is that he's a versatile enough offensive player and checked so many boxes that we took him even though lesser talent might have fit this particular system. It was the smart organizational thing to do because guess what we aren't going to always be running this system.

But that's the disconnect between us. I think the staff did know what they had in Simmons. It just wasn't seen in actual games. They saw in practice what he could do.

[Negrodamus]

We didn't need an on the ball guard, and that wasn't the rationale of getting him. He can be a secondary ball handler, but the primary driver for him was that he was a scoring guard that could shoot, defend the point, and iso score in stretches. He ticks all those boxes as a prospect.

If he ends up being a high level nba player in those areas then he is worth it.

Right, and we traded up for that player, but now he's off ball all the time, doesn't shoot (no one could have foreseen that though), isn't known as a plus defender. He shouldn't be ISOing ever, he should be running PnRs as often as he can in games.

It's like drafting Damian Lillard and putting him at SG. You take something that's a plus on him, being a pretty big PG, and minimize it by turning him into a spot up shooting undersized SG.

Now, they could be just minimizing his responsibilities because he's young, but if the long term play is to be, best case scenario, Beal or McCollum, then it's a little perplexing to me. Especially because he traded up for him.

??? Beal or McCollum was always his upside. If he becomes that, then this transaction becomes a success. If anything, I don't get why you use those picks to pick a 18 year old and have to wait 4 years for him to become Beal or McCollum. Just trade the picks for McCollum and avoid the risk.

That's his upside to you. In my opinion, you draft him #1 to be the Lillard type point guard. Even if he doesn't reach that level, he needs the ball in his hands quite a bit. That's why I would have taken Tatum 3rd overall and had an off ball scorer (who can play ISO when needed). That makes more sense to me. Donovan Mitchell plays great defense and has a nice shot. That's an off ball player that would make sense.

[Unbreakable99]

Don’t we all remember the hype MCW received after he smoked Miami in his first game, then the hyperbole that was Noel?

Now look at those two, neither is very good, let’s see Fultz play at least a season before we decide if if he was the wrong pick.

If Fultz is hurt then he shouldn’t play at all, if he’s healthy he needs to start and get 25-30 minutes a night. That way he hits the wall this February, not February of 2019 when we need him.

These guys all need to figure out how to play together and the sooner we put a consistent starting 5 on the floor, the better team they’ll be.

Noel is a good player. How do you slander him and say he's not very good?